Grounding electrode

[George Stolz]

Bob do you know if that is available online??
Bob the foundation , footings and such are inspected and paper work is signed off on them ?? from that moment on it exists

And here is a formal interpretation that no doubt made less splash but is very important none the less,.. same board and a good one for this catch IMO.
I hope the rest of the States are paying attention.:smile:

Where multiple concrete encased electrodes, as described in 250.52(A)(3) are present, and at least one of the concrete encased electrodes is connected to the grounding electrode system, is it permitted to omit from the grounding electrode system any additional such electrodes?

Answer: Yes.

I don't see the splash. I don't think I submitted a proposal on this (maybe I did, I'm too lazy to look), but someone did, and got it into the 2008 NEC:

250.52(A)(3) Concrete Encased Electrode. ... Where multiple concrete encased electrodes are present at a building or structure, it shall be permissible to bond only one into the grounding electrode system.

 

[iwire]

Well Gnole, I can see we have accurately answered this question for you. Is there anything else we can do for you today?

Chris, George gave Gnole a direct and IMO correct answer in the very first response to Gnole's question.

I have no idea why you and I seem to be having some sort of miscommunication over this issue. :-?

 

[chris kennedy]

Chris, George gave Gnole a direct and IMO correct answer in the very first response to Gnole's question.

I have no idea why you and I seem to be having some sort of miscommunication over this issue. :-?

I know he did Bob. I was trying to poke fun at what became a some what frustrating twist in this thread.

I got your point and I agree. Some times I read what I want, not whats actually written.

 

[M. D.]

I don't see the splash. I don't think I submitted a proposal on this (maybe I did, I'm too lazy to look), but someone did, and got it into the 2008 NEC:

I'm Happy to see that .

The splash is this;

Several construction methods employed in foundation construction result in multiple structural components meeting this definition of a Concrete-Encased Electrode, prompting local inspectors and contractors to question whether it is necessary to bond together all these independent components.

The 2005 says ALL ,..Our AHJ cought it and felt that a formal interpretation would sufice to let everyone know one is all that is required.

 

[M. D.]

George, I forgot to say thank you for history lesson.

I just hope this inspector is fair and makes all electricians make the GC expose the CEE,.. I also wish the requirement was in the building code such as to make the thing available , then fail my work when I don't use it.
This seems ass backwards to me,.. the electrical contract has yet to given ,yet the AHJ of the electrical code is responsible for making these available :-? seems dumb . Have the guy who inspects the footing / foundation make sure there is a stub to one of CEEs which shall be available for an electrical connection

It will now become the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to make sure these electrodes are made available for use prior to the concrete being poured in the foundations

.

 

[iwire]

This seems ass backwards to me,.. the electrical contract has yet to given ,yet the AHJ of the electrical code is responsible for making these available :-? seems dumb .

M. D. the EC is not responsible for the mis-actions of the GC.

That is why that text I posted from MA went out to GCs not ECs.

In the text of the letter it describes how the GC must hire an EC to do the footing work if there will be steel in it.

They go on further to explain that the EC hired to do the footing work need not be the one to do the actual service and building.

So even without an EC chosen for the entire job the GC must get an EC out to do the footing work.

Makes perfect sense to me.

It also means a sizable extra for 'PITA' factor if the GC missed the uffer and we have to chisel in to get it.

 

[George Stolz]

George, I forgot to say thank you for history lesson.

I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to make a pointed comment at you, but rather give you all the info that led to this change. If it came off like, "Here, you idiot!" that's not how I meant it. I was just being thorough.

The 2005 says ALL ,..Our AHJ cought it and felt that a formal interpretation would sufice to let everyone know one is all that is required.

Well, under the 2005, an AHJ could ignore the formal interpretation and exercise 90.4 to make someone (GC or EC) chisel out each Ufer and make use of it, IMO. If I were the guy stuck, I would do my best to get it onto the GC's shoulders, and would be bargaining with the AHJ, but in the end I'd be at the mercy of the AHJ, I would think.

Part of not seeing the 'splash' was that I don't see how someone would add a Ufer to the structure in question, to just use one of. Pouring a footer in the driveway and connecting to it doesn't seem to be at the structure, or be at the bottom of the foundation as 250.50 and 250.52(A)(3) seem to desire.

I mean, if the AHJ is willing to accept that, they ought to simply accept a couple of ground rods in tribute and forget about it, IMO.

 

[M. D.]

M. D. the EC is not responsible for the mis-actions of the GC.

That is why that text I posted from MA went out to GCs not ECs.

In the text of the letter it describes how the GC must hire an EC to do the footing work if there will be steel in it.

They go on further to explain that the EC hired to do the footing work need not be the one to do the actual service and building.

So even without an EC chosen for the entire job the GC must get an EC out to do the footing work.

Makes perfect sense to me.

It also means a sizable extra for 'PITA' factor if the GC missed the uffer and we have to chisel in to get it.

I think there are some states where the CEE is to be made available either way It must be used.

 

[M. D.]

I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to make a pointed comment at you, but rather give you all the info that led to this change. If it came off like, "Here, you idiot!" that's not how I meant it. I was just being thorough.
.

Geroge, I do appreciate the back up,. I'm glad to have it ,..no offense whatsoever was taken. This is all just talk and debate .

I think the reason they issued the formal Int. was because there might be separate footings such as for support beams that have a CEE in them .. they are not all required to be used Just one is ,.. If told to use them all , I would appeal it and in all likelihood win given the F.I. the folks who issued the F.I. is the AHJ

 

[mayjong]

CRIMENY SAKES!!
i agree,if in placed-it must be used.
i have a contractor today -11/13/07- saying other jurisdictions are requiring him to NOT connect(with tie-wire) the #4 bar at the bottom of the footing to the #4 bar he was running out of the footing to connect the grounding electrode conductor to... how do i explain it, other than telling him to read 250.50???
also, how can he explain it to other inspectors???
thanks!!!

 

[electricmanscott]

M. D. the EC is not responsible for the mis-actions of the GC.

That is why that text I posted from MA went out to GCs not ECs.

In the text of the letter it describes how the GC must hire an EC to do the footing work if there will be steel in it.

They go on further to explain that the EC hired to do the footing work need not be the one to do the actual service and building.

So even without an EC chosen for the entire job the GC must get an EC out to do the footing work.

Makes perfect sense to me.

This is just a part of the many processes the gc must follow in the course of a job. It should be no big deal.

 

[Cavie]

. Cavie says, I beleieve, their jurisdiction requires a CEE ber installed in the driveway. Others ????

This would be a better world if people would learn to read. I did not say a CEE is required in a driveway. I said that my boss will permit a ufer be installed in the drivway IF the ufer was missed in the footer. I say, get the jack hammer.

 

[chris kennedy]

This would be a better world if people would learn to read.

Hey Butch, how was your day?:grin:

 

[Cavie]

Hey Butch, how was your day?:grin:

It sucked! Ended a wounderful 3 day sailing weekend!

 

[electricmanscott]

This would be a better world if people would learn to read. I did not say a CEE is required in a driveway. I said that my boss will permit a ufer be installed in the drivway IF the ufer was missed in the footer. I say, get the jack hammer.

by "people" you must mean your boss. :-? His first excursion into the literary world should be the National Electric Code 250.52(A)(3) where he can read all about the wonders of concrete encased electrodes installed in driveways! :wink: